this part is from an email i got:
American Violet tells the amazing story of a young, single mother swept up in an unjust, out-of-control drug raid that targets the Black community in a small town in Texas. The film is based on true events and it examines how our country's drug laws and enforcement practices target African-Americans, and how the justice system uses threats and intimidation to steer people towards guilty pleas, regardless of their innocence or the evidence against them.
The film is inspired by the real life story of Regina Kelly, an African-American, single mother of four girls who was arrested in 2000 in a military-style drug raid. The raid resulted in the arrest of nearly 15% of the town's young Black male population for felony cocaine distribution. Kelly was innocent. Her name, along with the names of many others arrested (nearly all African-American), were given to police by a single, highly unreliable informant with personal reasons to antagonize her. Despite Kelly's innocence, she was urged to plead guilty by her family and even her public defender so that she could return to her children and receive a minimal sentence. A felony conviction, however, would have resulted in the loss of her right to vote and the public assistance programs on which her family depended, not to mention the tainting of her personal reputation and her ability to obtain employment. She chose to maintain her plea of not guilty. American Violet tells the story of her fight for justice.
now. for my comment :)
okay, so i loved this movie for a few reasons:
- this is the kind of thing that inspired me to do what i do. fighting the system is a very david and goliath type showdown, which makes it that much sweeter when you win. i hope this movie will inspire other people to pick up their stones and slingshots. . .you don't have to think in victim language.
- in the same vein, i liked this movie because it showed the side of the aclu i like. admittedly, i have a love/hate relationship with the aclu (american civil liberties union). they feel that cases about rights like those at issue here are equal to cases about the kkk's right to freedom of speech/expression--they don't do a balancing act when it comes to the effect of the rights they're protecting. i don't like this because it implies that there are not structural deficiencies in this country's 'rights' system. like all of us have had the same access to our rights for the same amount of time, and like some 'freedom of speech' is nothing more than a terror tactic and actually infringes on other people's rights and is nothing more than oppression itself. . .
- it is educational (and coonery free). it talks about an issue that we seem to overlook in our communities. for some reason we are quick to shun those of us who are 'convicted felons' as if we forget how messed up the system is. 90% of the 2.3 million people in jail are there as a result of a plea bargain--meaning they never went to trial and were never found guilty. and you know how easy it is to convince a scared, oppressed, innocent person to plead guilty to something just so they can go home/have a reduced sentence? they are thinking that if they could get arrested and they're innocent, they could also get convicted, apply some pressure and mind games . . .and bingo! instant win for the prosecutor and innocent person's life is forever changed.
- it doesn't glamorize the reality--the evil, racist, inept, vengeful district attorney who was the one causing the problems for this town was re-elected, despite the turnout of this case. it shows that everyone doesn't appreciate justice the way some people do, it shows that there's a reason the status quo exists. we shouldn't be discouraged, we should be appalled and fight harder. . .
- it also showed that there are a lot of factors that go into someone accepting a plea bargain, such as pressure from their families--their families know how to hit where it hurts in terms of persuasiveness, and sometimes that is enough to do away with the little fight the defendant has. this is just another manifestation of the short-sightedness/instant gratification problem that plagues our community a classic dialogue in the movie was (this is me paraphrasing after only seeing it once, sorry. lol):
momma: "girl that's for the afterlife. . .for the here and now you better take that plea"
- it also shows a side of black america that people may have wanted to forget now that our beloved president is in office. this case took place in 2002, but things like this are still happening. i cannot miss this moment to drive home the fact that "the dream" has not been realized just bc we have a black first family. the reality for too many people is that their communities are suffering from institutional, pervasive racism. poor black people are still targets. and contrary to what tyler perry may lead to you believe, a good man, some preaching and violent gestures from a man in a dress don't solve all the problems black women face. . .
- why did the black attorney spend most of the movie looking like a scared run away slave?? i was too through with him. it's a good thing he redeemed himself at the end :)
- i ♥ alfre woodard as a mother. i mean, she is great as a sanaa lathan mommy, but i just love her in any role where she gets to get a mommy attitude with her daughter. lol
- the main actress was such a good casting decision. she was touching and convincing. i hope we get to see more of her (hopefully in a movie where she can wear cuter clothes)
- and of course i loved the little girls, they were so cute and that oldest one was super convincing too (and did a good job of showing who suffers the most from these kinds of things)
- exzibit (sp?) as an actor. . .hmmm. he did pretty well. i'm not sure how much of a stretch the character was for him. maybe he was just that good that it seemed natural (glad he got rid of the cornrows tho. lol)
5 comments:
aww. i'm sorry you were disappointed :(
i don't know that i'd agree about the characters being 'hollywood stereotypes' seeing as the movie was based on true events and the characters, particularly the main character, is a real person.
and having worked with organizations like the naacp ldf and the aclu, i can vouch for the fact that while their mission is to help and provide resources in these situations, they can't do it without the participation of the community. it takes a person (or many) who is strong enough to fight the system and the only reason the 'saviors' work is bc someone in the community is willing to stand up for change. the organizations can't do anything without them. and it does take resources to wage this kind of battle. . .
i think the reason this particular character will inspire so many and make so many question their ingrained opinions of this situation is that she was innocently swept up in this racist operation. she had kids and was a good mother, was saving to go to jr. college, and most of all, found the strength to fight for herself and others when people around her were telling her to sit down and be quiet. she was anything but a victim. . .
so i just wanted to update this for those who care. . .the commenter above has a blog (http://www.blogger.com/profile/13583559303233985031) that, once i read it made me realize that some people just don't want to get it. this blogger is sitting on a high horse and her blog is like a tea party for like minded individuals interested in self congratulatory classism disguised as 'discussion'. she deletes comments that disagree with her and labels those posters 'trolls', she throws what amounts to nothing more than a temper tantrum, characterizing the deleted posts in the way most beneficial to her current tirade and then *gasp* bans you if you dare talk back. censorship always promotes good discussion, right? lol. it is all pretty funny in that sad, pathetic way. anyway, in case her blog about this movie or the comments following it express the views of anyone who reads my blog, i wanted to attach my (rather long--sorry, she was just so. . .off) response to her.
______________________
I have read your post and the comments and debated leaving a post. I'm not sure if you're deleting the ones that disagree or if the 'trolls' (is that really solidarity language?) were truly offensive and broke the rules, but you did me the courtesy of adding to my discussion, so i thought i'd give it a shot:
first, i wanted to clear up some things from a legal perspective. i am not the 'upper crust sista from yale' but i do a have a law degree from columbia (b.a. from my beloved howard university), so i can identify.
1. the aclu, the naacp, the naacp legal defense fund--any organization that sues to right these kind of wrongs has to have a plaintiff. the naacp screens its plaintiffs a lot more than you would think. rosa parks--strategic, brown (from brown v. board of ed)--strategic. they turn down plaintiffs all the time for any random reason. but my point is that *any* case they file has a plaintiff who has actually suffered the injury or else the organization doesn't have standing to sue. and yes, the organizations all have agendas--they have limited resources and strategize so that they have the most impact as possible with the resources they have. and it is highly unlikely that the attorneys ever get shine from the cases they work so hard on--i am speaking from experience. you don't do these things for praise--the pay is not great compared to your classmates who went into corporate law and the work is hard. people (like me) do this kind of work because they are trying to fight for what they believe in--that warm feeling you get and the feeling that you helped even a few people are the biggest rewards you get most times. i'm not sure if your contention was with the white lawyer or the fact that it was the aclu and not the naacp, but the stories are much the same. and to the extent that it was a white lawyer, you'd be surprised to learn that most black attorneys don't want to do this kind of work, they go where the money is, or they have the attitude that they are embarrassed by the lower class blacks and there is no need for a civil rights battle bc they themselves made it (it really hurt my heart to read the comment that said she was looking forward to leaving the practice of law and helping the lower class blacks and never looking back. is that really the answer?)
2. i think you underestimate the difficulty of a case like this, you say Dee should have realized she could have sued without the aclu, but the reality is 1) that organization's name added pressure to settle--a regional attorney wouldn't have had the same success--remember the case was settled, not won in court (and even if she had solicited the aclu's help herself, she may not have gotten their help. like i said, limited resources) 2) most attorneys will not take a case like this on contingency. . .she didn't have the money to hire an attorney for this huge of a case. Even the white hometown attorney was reluctant to do this case--it isn't about race or class.
3) as far as being an 'upper crust sista', i've found that my clients react well to me. they are proud of my accomplishments, as if i was their own daughter, they feel i can identify with their stories more than the white partners in the office, and they want me to be impressed by them and believe in them. i think your generalization is unfair.
4) as far as character is concerned, it was important for her to say what she stole--not because she was bragging or showed lack of resourcefulness, but because it showed she wasn't a malicious criminal. there are plenty of upper class kids--white and black--who steal for the kicks, peer pressure, etc. she stole to feed her family--it might not have been right, but it is better than painting her as someone with criminal mind and dishonest character. and you mention that you're not a mother, but any mother will tell you that she would steal rather than have her baby be hungry. (and you don't know at what point in the 'government assistance' process she was. it is admittedly slow and full of red tape)
my biggest contention with this post is that you want to accuse the lower class people of being classist, but you sound really classist yourself. i learned that you shouldn't look down on people unless you're helping them up--but it seems like you want to have the academic discussions without getting in the trenches and actually doing something. you justify judging these people by throwing in 'think tank' discussion questions at the end. how lucky that you lived in a place where police would come to kill a spider--many people live in a place where the police take hours to come (the spider would be long gone) even in real emergency situations--if they come at all. and i don't know why you think the community you live in affects the way police treat you as a black person--both president obama and his wife have expressed the notion that as a black person, even pumping gas can be a dangerous activity. that speaks to your perspective. . .you can't speak for someone else's perspective. it's like barack said, you want these people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if they don't have any boots. poverty is a cycle--the surviving day to day mentality is but one byproduct. and you talk about these people not knowing the difference between racism and classism--it is clear that racism was the issue in this movie--thus the effort at proving racist intent. the whole town seemed to lack riches so i'm not sure who they'd compare themselves to.
you probably also had the type of education and influences that created expectations, created role models, and helped you achieve goals. lucky you once again--everyone doesn't have access to that. some people grow up surrounded by people who are so concerned with making it that they don't have the energy or time to 'inspire'. and yes, there are those who have the strength to break through the barriers they were born with, but most of us don't--regardless of class or color. you don't even give dee credit for the strength it takes to be a plaintiff in a case like this and making herself vulnerable to retaliation and chastisement--in her own community and even from people like you.
you can't teach something you never learned. and let's not even get into the educational system in the united states, the institutional racism, or the pipeline from schools to prison. if you think everyone has an equal chance to succeed in this country, you are sorely mistaken. that is not victim language, that is just fact. the best way to fix it is with a time machine, in the meantime, the problem is so big that it requires institutional solutions--you can't seriously expect these individuals to fix it themselves.
my other problem is that it is clear you grew up in a household with your father--this whole post seems to be your advocating people to be like you. my mother was married when i was born--i still grew up without my father. did she want me to have him there--yes. would that be reflected in our everyday interactions? no. i'm not sure how you wanted dee to seem bothered that her 'children were growing up with their fathers' but i'm sure most single mothers who are actually good parents would tell you 1) sometimes it's better to have no man than a sorry man and 2) they are raising their children just fine, and while help would be nice, it is not necessary. i resent your statement on behalf of my mother. things may not be perfect, but you do the best you can with what you have and she did a very good job--and she is not the only one.
i'm actually still having trouble figuring out whether you were 'very disappointed' in the movie--or in the real life story and the people who you obviously look down upon.
lastly, i would like to leave you with web dubois' idea of the talented tenth--in NO race is every man going to be able to be at the top due to his own efforts. it us up to those in the talented tenth of the population to reach back and pull up--that is what makes us a better race.
Sounds like it's definitely worth seeing, not only because of detailed summary and assessment but also because your last suggestion - Cadillac Records - was excellent. I somewhat disagree (or would like to hear more about) your thoughts on the ACLU supporting the rights of a majority-led group as well as those of a minority when they see fit. On principle I would say that's exactly what they should be doing. In addition, I would say that their choosing to support the rights of a majority-led group such as the KKK is by no means indicative of whether the ACLU equates the treatment of both groups.
please let me know what you think :)
ah the aclu--it's not about who leads the group it's about the 'rights' they're protecting. and yes, the aclu will advocate for the aclu as quick as they will the people in this movie. . .they are a civil liberties organization. and 'principle' is great, but what about the reality? if the playing field was level, if there was no such thing as a history of oppression in this country, we could afford to operate on principle. but since there is, advocating on 'principle' is sometimes just serving to preserve the status quo as far as oppression and scare tactics go. when i think of situations of 'race neutrality' or other oppressed group-neutrality i think of the desmond tutu quote that says. "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."
i am just not of the opinion that you can take 'rights' talk out of its context, perhaps it's just my perspective as the 'doubly disadvantaged'
Post a Comment